F-22 production will end at 187 aircraft

[RvETito]

What a waste! Now if americans are clever they will organize Kamov helicopters final assembly in the F-22 production lines after the last one goes out :D

[GGTharos]

A matter of about 30-40 years or, perhaps, a magical leap in technology? :)

 

That's what the American engineers thought some 20 years ago. They believed IR stuff is useless and it's all about radar. The day they will get shot at head-on by a modern IR missile from 50+ nautical miles will prove them wrong. It's only a matter of time before that happens.

[GGTharos]

For the strict AS role, no. But the world is more complex. Take QRA flights, often flown by typical AS fighters. Most of the real QRA flights now involve identifying aircraft rather than shooting an AIM-120D at it. With an frontal optical system, you can have a clear look at it from farther away.

 

NCTR.

'Even Farther away'

'Multiple simultaneous identifications'

 

I think it is no surprise that frontal vision systems have been developed for Typhoon, Rafale, Flanker, Mig-29 but now also for Eagle and Super Hornet. In both the latter's cases, specifically for A2A use. And don't forget the updated Eagle already has an Aesa radar in the F-22 performance class.

 

Specifically for A2G use, with a secondary function in the A2A role, actually - as far as Typhoon and Rafale go. The Flanker and MiG-29 had'em as a backup to a crappy radar.

Modern fighters also have them as backup to poorly working ECCM.

 

Maybe the F-22 doesn't need it for its (highly debated and contested) main role, but if it would be available, I do not think the pilots would complain.

 

Who's debating and contesting its main role? People who think it should be bombing caves? ;) Excuse me, but have we not said time and again you don't build weapons to fight past or current wars, but future ones also, should you want to win?

So then, all those Su-30MKIs, Su-35's, PAK-FAs with TVC and IRSTs are pretty useless also, aren't they? I mean, it's not like their 'main role' (Which, at least for the Su-35 is - GUESS WHAT! AIR SUPERIORITY!) is useful.

 

I saw an image of Rafale OSF of a locked fighter at BVR range, where you could read the aircraft number on the image. Seems useful to me.

 

I realize you're probably unaware of this, wether through deliberate action of forgetfulness, but the USN had such things on the F-14 as well. They ended up not using them much.

 

Rafale pilots claim it even helps finding and aligning with a tanker. But if you don't want it, OK for me. F-35 customers really, really want it. And not only for A2G.

 

Yes, primarily for A2G. Sure, it'll help you line up with a tanker - what's so strange about that? You're got a HUGE hot target, it's passive as well which permits them to maintain a target track despite emission restrictions near a tanker. And really, what's strange about tracking an aircraft with an IR camera from 10-20km away WHEN YOU KNOW where it is in the first place?

[Wilde]

A matter of about 30-40 years or, perhaps, a magical leap in technology? :)

 

Or maybe not? Apparently RAND thinks the Typhoon is already capable of doing that as we discuss here. You might want to read the other thread. ;)

[GGTharos]

You may want to use an IRST ;)

[hitman]

That's what the American engineers thought some 20 years ago. They believed IR stuff is useless and it's all about radar. The day they will get shot at head-on by a modern IR missile from 50+ nautical miles will prove them wrong. It's only a matter of time before that happens.

Thats true, but until then...and about 20 years ago, radar missiles were useless as well. This is why modern a/c still have guns...another almost useless idea still floating around. On a similar subject, the F-14 had a long range camera mounted on the chin that could do the exact same thing some ppl are claiming here. Think maybe theres a good reason why we dont have it on other aircraft other than it introduces an incredible amount of drag.

 

Heres an idea why the US doesnt use any IRST like the CIS aircraft have. That little IR ball sensor forward of the canopy? Lets say for sake of argument that little glass ball has a surface area of about...6" diamerter.

 

.000327*AV^2 = formula for drag

A=Area

V=Velocity, kts

 

.000327*(.7854*3^2)*450^2 (450kts cruise)

450lbs of parasitic drag induced just by that IRST sensor. Avoiding this gives the a/c a better chance at supercruise.

Edited April 16, 2009 by hitman

[Wilde]

You may want to use an IRST ;)

 

I do in LOFC. But I wish it was as god as the one RAND believes the Typhoon to have.

[tflash]

I do not agree that IRST developments on Boeing aircraft like Eagle and Super Hornet are mainly for AG. Certainly not given the fact they mostly also have state-of-the art sensors like ATFlir, Sniper XR adn Litening III.

 

Boeing itself cites other reasons:

 

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q3/070702a_nr.html

 

How much clearer can it be?

 

Also, on Rafale the OSF will be complemented with the Damocles pod for better A2G capabilities. The frontal mount of OSF means it is more suited for A2A and long-range A2ship ID than for A2G targeting. French AF also developed specific tactics to use OSF in combination with Mica IR missile, for A2A.

 

I'm not saying at all that this makes these fighters superior to F-22, not at all. I'm saying that if you were to develop F-22 today, you would most likely NOT reject IRST.

[GGTharos]

The Typhoon can pick up large, mostly broadside targets in the form of a bomber/airliner or perhaps a large aircraft formation that doesn't have a lot of spacing from some 80nm, on a GOOD day, in a reasonably uncluttered environment.

It's performance against a head-on fighter is significantly less capable compared to a radar - on the order of 15nm head-on, probably with the afterburner going - there are a very few factors that could potentially increase this, and then you have stealth fighters with active cooling to boot. ;)

 

The EOS in FC is approximately correct in its capability - at least if the Flanker/MiG manuals and a testimony here and there is believable. I'm sure nscode could chime in with more information on this.

[GGTharos]

Note these quotes:

 

"Integration of IRST significantly enhances the capability of the Super Hornet Block II by providing multi-spectral air-to-air targeting"

 

"IRST is a passive, long-range sensor system that searches for and detects long-wave IR emissions within its field of view. It can track several targets simultaneously and provide an effective air-to-air targeting capability, even when facing advanced threats with radar jamming equipment."

 

If those aren't screaming 'backup system' to you, then I don't know what would. Not to mention the whole stick-it-in-a-fuel-tank joke.

 

As for your last statement, there I'm inclined to disagree too strongly. Another sensor is another sensor. Always handy - my beef is with the thought that it's some form of long-range primary search and acquisition system. It isn't, and likely never will be.

 

I do not agree that IRST developments on Boeing aircraft like Eagle and Super Hornet are mainly for AG. Certainly not given the fact they mostly also have state-of-the art sensors like ATFlir, Sniper XR adn Litening III.

 

Boeing itself cites other reasons:

 

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q3/070702a_nr.html

 

How much clearer can it be?

 

Also, on Rafale the OSF will be complemented with the Damocles pod for better A2G capabilities. The frontal mount of OSF means it is more suited for A2A and long-range A2ship ID than for A2G targeting. French AF also developed specific tactics to use OSF in combination with Mica IR missile, for A2A.

 

I'm not saying at all that this makes these fighters superior to F-22, not at all. I'm saying that if you were to develop F-22 today, you would most likely NOT reject IRST.

[Wilde]

Hm, I prefer to put my money on RAND's unsubstantiated "facts" rather than on yours, sorry. ;)

 

Although I believe both of you have a similar agenda.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Wilde

[GGTharos]

I think you mistook the '50nm head on' for '50nm head on against fighters'. Highly unlikely.

 

I think people read the numbers posted and assume that the realm of possibility equals the realm of very high probability of detection. Also incorrect.

 

While what the RAND report states is correct, what they don't tell you is that you won't pick up what you aren't looking at - the IRST can achieve long range with the help sensor fusion. I'll leave it at that.

[Wilde]

I think you mistook the '50nm head on' for '50nm head on against fighters'.

 

Well, the study states "50nm against sub-sonic airplanes" iirc. Even if this is supposed to be tankers or airliners, a supercruising or afterburning fighter surely isn't that much harder to see on an IRST like that.

[tflash]

Another sensor is another sensor. Always handy - my beef is with the thought that it's some form of long-range primary search and acquisition system. It isn't, and likely never will be.

 

I'm not clear about that either. It is claimed both for the Pirate system on Typhoon as the OSF on Rafale that it could detect and automatically track targets. But nowhere in any documentation nor in interviews with pilots this capability is mentioned or elaborated. I would agree with you that this is highly doubtful. What is probably meant is that it can help strenghten radar detection, tracking and lock, (eg in a jamming environment) what you call a backup system.

 

I for my part see multispectral frontal optronics primarily as view enhancement. It is ideal for visual long-range ID. And it can in no way be compared to the crude systems on Phantom (IRST and TISEO) and Tomcat. That would be like comparing the seeker of a walleye or Maverick B missile with a dual-mode seeker on Brimstone or Hellfire, or a Pave Tack image with a Sniper XR one.

[Vault]

Any link-16 device is able to opperate in data silent mode. I am sure that the protocol desing covers problems of passive participants on the network. ACK/retransmit is not the only way to ensure data consistency. Heavy ECC alghoritms can compensate for that (with some overhead, but I don't think that is an issue for this type of network).

nscode after reading up on link-16 it appears it's not an issue for link-16 LOS network communications. Link-16 utilises time division multiplexing that continually transmits data in time division slots link-16 does not transmit data in packets.

 

1) What does 'gagged' mean? Does it mean they prefer not to transmit? Because if they CAN transmit, that becomes important.

2) SATCOM can be directional. Directional = much fewer ECM/ELINT issues, regardless of frequency.

1. By gagged I meant the F-22's IFDL is limited to receive data from link-16 only.

2. Do any aircraft that utilise SATCOM datalink networks use anything other than directional antennas?.

[GGTharos]

2. I don't know, though it'd be silly not to ;)

[GGTharos]

I disagree. Especially when that supercruiser is engaging you from 100km out (not that I think it really would, but it can ;) ) - further, area counts. Big aircraft have huge area - and while the leading edges of a supercruising aircraft will heat up more than those of a subsonic one, I'm fairly certain that the difference in temperature will not make up for the difference in area.

 

Well, the study states "50nm against sub-sonic airplanes" iirc. Even if this is supposed to be tankers or airliners, a supercruising or afterburning fighter surely isn't that much harder to see on an IRST like that.

[GGTharos]

You can see an automatic designation and tracking system (not A2A, but the principle is similar) in some youtube vids.

 

The noise/clutter is stunning (every window is a target).

 

I'm not clear about that either. It is claimed both for the Pirate system on Typhoon as the OSF on Rafale that it could detect and automatically track targets. But nowhere in any documentation nor in interviews with pilots this capability is mentioned or elaborated. I would agree with you that this is highly doubtful. What is probably meant is that it can help strenghten radar detection, tracking and lock, (eg in a jamming environment) what you call a backup system.

 

 

Actually the tomcat had been fitted with a pretty sophisticated scanning IRST at some point - but sadly, the tomcat retired. Insofar as the F-22 is concerned, and the F-15 too, they can EID their targets and have no real need for the IRST; however, there HAVE been cases of pilots wishing for something to better ID things at range - you may have heard of the sniper eagle. It was literally a sniper scope counted on the HUD bracket IIRC - so I'm not trying to say they're useless or unwanted devices ... merely far, FAR from being the primary sensor of choice, the overall best sensor of choice, or anything near 'a sensor of parity with radar'. If you think an EOS/IRST will help you with an F-22 just because it's supercruising and you somehow think that'll give you an 'excellent, smithers' moment against it - you've been playing too much LOMAC and maddogging too many ET's ;)

 

I for my part see multispectral frontal optronics primarily as view enhancement. It is ideal for visual long-range ID. And it can in no way be compared to the crude systems on Phantom (IRST and TISEO) and Tomcat. That would be like comparing the seeker of a walleye or Maverick B missile with a dual-mode seeker on Brimstone or Hellfire, or a Pave Tack image with a Sniper XR one.

[nscode]

nscode after reading up on link-16 it appears it's not an issue for link-16 LOS network communications. Link-16 utilises time division multiplexing that continually transmits data in time division slots link-16 does not transmit data in packets.

 

 

1. By gagged I meant the F-22's IFDL is limited to receive data from link-16 only.

2. Do any aircraft that utilise SATCOM datalink networks use anything other than directional antennas?.

 

 

No, TDMA alone does not solve that problem. It's just a way for multiple users to share the same channel. How you will combine data from those slots is up to the upper layers of the protocol. See into the difference between TCP and UDP.

 

 

I'd like to see those SATCOM antennas :)

[Pilotasso]

Well, the study states "50nm against sub-sonic airplanes" iirc. Even if this is supposed to be tankers or airliners, a supercruising or afterburning fighter surely isn't that much harder to see on an IRST like that.

 

I disagree. Especially when that supercruiser is engaging you from 100km out (not that I think it really would, but it can ;) ) - further, area counts. Big aircraft have huge area - and while the leading edges of a supercruising aircraft will heat up more than those of a subsonic one, I'm fairly certain that the difference in temperature will not make up for the difference in area.

 

F-22's have IR supression measures. You wont see much more IR radiation from leading edges than the rest of the plane. How exactly it is achieved is classified though I have read info somewhere stated that F-22 irrigate fuel through the wings and other strategical places to cool those areas down (yes fuel can be heated before being burned) F-35 does not have this.

 

Afterburners on the F-22 are only visible directly from behind. If an F-22 is afterburning it will be hard to get it inside the no escape envelope of any missile.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Pilotasso

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

If an F-22 is afterburning it will be hard to get it inside the no escape envelope of any missile.

Same as with F-4 or MiG-21?

[tflash]

I have read info somewhere stated that F-22 irrigate fuel through the wings and other strategical places to cool those areas down (yes fuel can be heated before being burned) F-35 does not have this.

 

On the contrary, the whole F-35 concept revolves around this: fuel everywhere for cooling. One of the development problems has to do with what to do when the fuel nears bingo, and the cooling capacity has become smaller.

[DarkWanderer]

Sorry for breaking in, but:

You wont see much more IR radiation from leading edges than the rest of the plane. How exactly it is achieved is classified though I have read info somewhere stated that F-22 irrigate fuel through the wings and other strategical places to cool those areas down (yes fuel can be heated before being burned) F-35 does not have this.

The shock cone itself has rest temperature of 90C at Mach 1.3, and the temperature increases as M^2. You can do nothing about it.

Also, from open sources - fuel is just a part of the aircraft cooling system, nothing more.

The only unique feature here is the fact of using liquid cooling itself.

 

Afterburners on the F-22 are only visible directly from behind.

That's just a guess.

 

If an F-22 is afterburning it will be hard to get it inside the no escape envelope of any missile.

Sorry, but the difference in dynamic characteristics with Su-35 is less than 50%. This does not make quality leap.

 

I'm not arguing about F-22's superiority, it is your sights on it what is arguable ;)

[tflash]

... merely far, FAR from being the primary sensor of choice, the overall best sensor of choice, or anything near 'a sensor of parity with radar'.

 

a/ Every technology has its weak point. The big problem with radar is that it is not only a sensor, but also an emitter. You can do the AESA as much as you want, you will still be emitting.

 

b/ Radar can be jammed. While there is a clearly defined concept of Low Probability of Intercept, there is no such thing as No Probability of Intercept. Ever.

 

c/ Radar is the most logical against airborne objects. Second comes IR, admittedly at a far distance. But advances in computing power mean that multispectral sensors are becoming more and more a realistic alternative to IR-only. They combine the advantages of optics (that you can discern shape, colors and intensity, while radar only sees shape and IR only intensity) with the faster processing advantages of IR. A concept of "Enhanced Visual Range" between WVR and BVR is taking shape.

 

d/ *sensor* fusion did not materialize in F-22 (it does do superior data fusion), but will be alive in F-35. Overlaying and combining multispectral images with radar data and comms / sigint / ECCM data and combining it with GPS/INS will give true modern fighters an SA that even an F-22 pilot cannot but dream of. The F-35 pilot will, if all goes well, have a virtually enhanced view on reality. The F-22 pilot has, imho but I can be wrong, have a superior tactical view on the battlespace. But that is an older, nineties information concept. Due to the different nature of their missions, the F-22 willnormally have a (more schematic) overview of a far larger space than the F-35 pilot, who has to "see" much more detail of his surroundings.

 

If you think an EOS/IRST will help you with an F-22 just because it's supercruising and you somehow think that'll give you an 'excellent, smithers' moment against it - you've been playing too much LOMAC and maddogging too many ET's ;)

 

You are absolutely right on this. (No, not that I would be maddoging ET's of course!!!!)

[GGTharos]

a/ Every technology has its weak point. The big problem with radar is that it is not only a sensor, but also an emitter. You can do the AESA as much as you want, you will still be emitting.

 

Okay, sure.

 

b/ Radar can be jammed. While there is a clearly defined concept of Low Probability of Intercept, there is no such thing as No Probability of Intercept. Ever.

 

And so what? In a sea of other emitters, what's one spurious contact going to be other than a spurious contact?

 

c/ Radar is the most logical against airborne objects. Second comes IR, admittedly at a far distance. But advances in computing power mean that multispectral sensors are becoming more and more a realistic alternative to IR-only. They combine the advantages of optics (that you can discern shape, colors and intensity, while radar only sees shape and IR only intensity) with the faster processing advantages of IR. A concept of "Enhanced Visual Range" between WVR and BVR is taking shape.

 

 

Advanced in computing power mean squat on a rainy day ;) IIR sensors are still relatively low resolution, and by the time you pick up even an F-15, he'll have EID' you and has a missile coming down on you at or before your IIR sensor picks him up. While there are scenarios where this won't be the case (ie. for whatever reason, the engagement will be shorter ranged), that EID is still smoking - and again, having that IRST is nice, but it isn't necessary. It doesn't even necessarily confer an advantage. It -can-, but it's an 'just in case' sensor. Alternatively, you can of course cue it from datalink and prosecute a different sort of fight.

 

 

d/ *sensor* fusion did not materialize in F-22 (it does do superior data fusion), but will be alive in F-35.

 

That is definitely incorrect. The ALR-94 is yet another sensor.

 

Overlaying and combining multispectral images with radar data and comms / sigint / ECCM data and combining it with GPS/INS will give true modern fighters an SA that even an F-22 pilot cannot but dream of.

 

He might be missing the images (and only CLOSE UP) but he arguably doesn't really need them nor care for his primary mission. Because - they're close up. Everything else, he has.

 

The F-35 pilot will, if all goes well, have a virtually enhanced view on reality. The F-22 pilot has, imho but I can be wrong, have a superior tactical view on the battlespace. But that is an older, nineties information concept.

 

Actually it's a pretty current concept.

 

 

Due to the different nature of their missions, the F-22 willnormally have a (more schematic) overview of a far larger space than the F-35 pilot, who has to "see" much more detail of his surroundings.

 

You get what you need to do your job - adding on more stuff just because you think it's cool just adds cost and maintenance time. And weight, too.